They can be impeached but it would have to be something pretty egregious for that to happen. I am not happy with their decision regarding corporations being allowed to give to political campaigns as part of their free speech rights. Since when did corporations become more important than the people? I guess we're headed for a plutocracy with this decision. Being facetious, the only way to be happy about the decision is if corporations begin liberally giving to the Democrats. It could happen. Even then, it's a bad decision.

KarenS, if you check www.followthemoney.org, you will find that corporations actually do give more money to Democrats than to Republicans. That site can also tell you where your congressman's and senators' contributions come from. This can be very depressing.

The job of the Supreme Court is not to decide that something is or is not a good idea. The job of the court is to decide if something is or is not constitutional — not the same thing.

I think the law was struck down because it supposedly abridged freedom of speech. I have difficulty, though, equating corporations with individuals or even groups of individuals, such as the VFW, and I think it's only by considering them as individuals or a group that the decision makes sense.

I would not care to argue that the decisions of the Supreme Court are never political. Nor would I care to argue that Supreme Court decisions are characterized by impeccable legal reasoning.

To go back a number of years, many lawyers and legal scholars would agree, for example, that Brown v. the Board of Education was a badly reasoned legal decision but an absolutely necessary moral decision. The pity is that members of congress lacked the courage to pass the laws that would have made recourse to the Supreme Court unnecessary. Leaving it to the courts meant they did not need to risk taking a possibly unpopular stand.

Unfortunately, in my lifetime I have seen little evidence that elected representatives demonstrate any moral courage whatever. Those that do generally lose the next election.

Do I think Citizens United was a good decision? No. Do I think that corporations should be treated as persons under the law? No. Do I think that the five justices in the majority should be impeached? No.

It's dangerous to start calling for the impeachment of judges for handing down decisions you don't like. That's precisely what happened in the wake of Brown v. Board, arguably the greatest decision in modern Supreme Court history.* "Impeach Earl Warren" buttons and billboards and campaigns started throughout the South. (And the Fifth Circuit judges who ultimately had to implement Brown through subsequent litigation were subject to the same calls, as well as death threats and ostracism.)

It's part of the reason why Article III judges have life tenure--to ensure their ability to make decisions without fear of losing their seat. Judges can be removed for high crimes and misdemeanors, not bad, or even offensive, legal reasoning. I do not like the direction the Court has taken over the past 20 years or so, but at the same time, to start crying for impeachment because of results is a dangerous path to take. What happens when federal judges hand down decisions that do conform to one's worldview, and the other side starts screaming about impeachment (as Tom DeLay did quite a bit during his heyday)? Judicial independence is more than a concept, it is fundamental to the way our legal system functions; damaging it for short-term gain does not serve anybody's interests in the long run.

*Is it the most scholarly opinion? No, and that was a deliberate choice by Earl Warren. Most of those who argue it was "bad" legal reasoning take a pretty dim view of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment generally and many are slavish adherents to Originalism--most of their critiques have been challenged quite effectively by some of their own ideological brethren It's really only at the edges that you see a frontal attack on Brown, and most of that rests on the psychological evidence rather than the understanding of the guarantees of the 14th amendment and the reasoning in Brown was consistent with the purpose and reach of that amendment.

This case was decided on the existing (since 1970s campaign finance reform) doctrine that money is "speach." Consequently, it is irrelevant that contributors are a corporation in this specific case. Were it decided the other way, a case could be made to restrict private citizens from contributing monetarily to campaigns. The only I see here is that the Court heard it at all. The Court can, and should, refuse to grant certiorari to cases presenting a purely political question of law. I think that campaing finance is inherently political and has no place in the Court.

Frankly, this decision, whether you agree with it or not, is just a drop in the bucket of campaign finance law. Either way it was decided, both major political parties would find new loopholes. There are still PACs that can obtain special tax status (I believe it is 512(c)) that allows them to raise and distribute funds for political purposes without any disclosure. The bottom line is, the losers in the political arena will scream campaign finace reform until they become the winners and then they fight any attempt to restrict their ability to raise funds. For anybody interested in the long and depressing history of campaign finance reform, you should read The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook by Anthony Corrado. It is a dry read but very informative

As for impeaching the justices, that is absurd. I admit that I am a conservative and thus more inclined to agree with their decisions but I would feel the same about any liberal justice. The Supreme Court was intended to be as a-political as it is possible to be when it is administered by human beings. Impeaching for political gain within the Court is irresponsible and injects even more politics into the Court, where politics is already too present in our country. The Court is not, never was intended as, and never should be, a democratic institution._________________"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

My advice is to bunker down, protect yourself and your family as much as possible. I really don't expect to see us keeping many security benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc. These all benefit us the middle class and once they are gone, most of us will have difficulties. After Romney told voters that corporations are people too-you know where the Republican party is headed. So that means we the people are screwed. The fight is going to be between the conservative and progressive corporations and the wealthy. Whichever side prevails will determine where we go as a country. Keep your passports up-to-date and have enough money so that another country will be willing to take you in.

If you think about it, we all have been pretty silly thinking the world cares about us. The world only cares for those with power, wealth and influence.

Wow, KarenS, and here I thought I was a pessimist! But I was confused by your last paragraph. Who is the "we" and "us" you are referring to--and what do you mean by "the world"? Just want to follow along here!

P.S. I started watching Downton Abbey and find it an absolutely wonderful escape.

Wow, KarenS, and here I thought I was a pessimist! But I was confused by your last paragraph. Who is the "we" and "us" you are referring to--and what do you mean by "the world"? Just want to follow along here!

P.S. I started watching Downton Abbey and find it an absolutely wonderful escape.

"Us" means the middle class whether you are lower, middle or upper middle class. Us folks who don't own at least ten homes, a Gulfstream jet and a l00' yacht. I do ask Republicans if they are worth at least $20 million and when they admit they don't have that kind of money, I ask them why they are Republicans? Ever action of the Republican party today is for the sole benefit of corporations and the upper 1%. I think this group has contempt and disdain for us middle class folks but my hubby just thinks they are indifferent. I think they have contempt since we all don't aspire to be just like them. They can't connect with us since we don't share the same drive and ambition. Being comfortable is my goal in life. As long as I can pay all my bills and have enough left over at the end of the month to save and invest, then I am happy.

The "world" is those who call the shots, those with the power and influence to make things happen. The "world" takes a pretty dim view of those that are powerless and weak.

Extremely disappointed about the decision of the Supremes in the Hobby Lobby case. But considering the makeup of the court, not unexpected. To me this case isn't about contraceptives or even religion but about the rights of billionaires over the little people. The Green family wanted to prove their rights are more important than their workers. We don't want to do something(what will it be next time?) so therefore we shouldn't have to. Plutocracy is practically here.

A billionaire investor, Nick Hanauer, wrote an interesting op-ed piece about income inequality several weeks ago. He basically said if the .01% did not share the wealth with the rest of the world the pitchforks would be coming out for them.

Billionaires are entitled to their money, they have earned it. The rub is the laws that favor them over the rest of us. There is enough money in the world for everyone to have a decent standard of living. Pay people a living wage. When the poor have money, they spend it. It stipulates the economy.